Ranger Raptor

[shaffe]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Ranger is CY 2018 as MY 2019
Bronco follows in CY 2019 as MY 2020

Back in early 2015 Ford Performance stated something like 12-15 new or revised FP Vehicles by 2020. So. . .

1. '16+ GT350
2. '16+ GT350R
3. '16+ F-150 Raptor
4. Revised Focus ST
5. Revised Fiesta ST
6. '17+ Focus RS
7. '16+ GT

8-12?
GT500?
Ranger Raptor?
Bronco Raptor?!
A Lightning successor?
Fusion ST? Since Ford has already stated that the SPORT is not a FP vehicle.
A new Mustang variant, Mach1 powered by a 3.5EB HO?

Who knows?

Wonder if the new performance vehicles got put on hold with the shake up at the top of the company though...

[newmoon]

As poorly as the F150 Raptor did in the Motortrend comparison review I don't think I would consider this Ranger version.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ram/2...0-power-wagon/

[Expunge]

That was a pretty sweet article. Read it a while back

The Raptor is better suited for Desert style terrain. The PowerWagon was in its ideal environment, which is logging trails. Colorado did well but is underpowered and undersized compared to its competition but handled its own.

The big beef with the Raptor is the engine. A fullsize truck (that is your Halo truck) should not have a V6.. it needs a V8, plain and simple.

[S2K+1LE]

They are selling at or above MSRP still, and that V6 makes more power than the outgoing 8.

[Expunge]

It does, but you still have turbo lag and all the power is in the upper RPM's where a truck engine should not be. And when it comes to longevity, I will take a V8 over a twin turbo v6 any day. It is well documented that Ford's turbo's have issues after 70K miles.

But that does not fit Ford's vision of lighter and more MPG's. So expect turbo's and Aluminum in the next Ranger.

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by Expunge

That was a pretty sweet article. Read it a while back

The Raptor is better suited for Desert style terrain. The PowerWagon was in its ideal environment, which is logging trails. Colorado did well but is underpowered and undersized compared to its competition but handled its own.

The big beef with the Raptor is the engine. A fullsize truck (that is your Halo truck) should not have a V6.. it needs a V8, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Expunge

It does, but you still have turbo lag and all the power is in the upper RPM's where a truck engine should not be. And when it comes to longevity, I will take a V8 over a twin turbo v6 any day. It is well documented that Ford's turbo's have issues after 70K miles.

But that does not fit Ford's vision of lighter and more MPG's. So expect turbo's and Aluminum in the next Ranger.

EcoBoast IS Ford's 'halo engine'. The new GT exists as almost exclusively as a way to market the engine. How much better a V8 would be for it or the Raptor is irrelevant. Marketing has already decided that smaller engines, with direct injection and turbochargers are superior. And so it shall be done ...

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by newmoon

As poorly as the F150 Raptor did in the Motortrend comparison review I don't think I would consider this Ranger version.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/ram/2...0-power-wagon/

I remember reading that article.

I chuckled when I read the bit about the flies. Canada's black fly country is kinda infamous. Most stories about it feel like hyperbole until you've actually experienced it. Not really something I want to go through again.

oops ...



Ranger Raptor

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by Expunge

It does, but you still have turbo lag and all the power is in the upper RPM's where a truck engine should not be. And when it comes to longevity, I will take a V8 over a twin turbo v6 any day. It is well documented that Ford's turbo's have issues after 70K miles.

But that does not fit Ford's vision of lighter and more MPG's. So expect turbo's and Aluminum in the next Ranger.

Lag is minimal. My '13 F-150 SuperCrew equipped with the 1st gen 3.5EB is over 110k miles. . . no issues.

"All the power is in the upper RPM where a truck engine should not be."

3.5EB HO delivers max torque of 510lbft @ 3500rpm.
GM's truck duty 6.2 delivers 460lbft @ 4100rpm.

3.5EB HO max HP of 450 is @ 5000rpm
Truck 6.2L max HP of 420 is @ 5600rpm


But, i digress.

The new Ranger should by all means utilize the 2.7EB, in a HO guise, as its top tier engine. It fits current playbook being put out by Ford Performance, what with pushing the EB name further and further.

Base could be a NA 2.3, a 3.0L Powerstroke should be an option, and the 2.7EB and a 2.7EB HO can sit at the top.

[Bhobbs]

GM should have put the 6.2 in the ZR2.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by Bhobbs

GM should have put the 6.2 in the ZR2.

They barely put it in the Silverado. 6.2 much harder to find.

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Lag is minimal. My '13 F-150 SuperCrew equipped with the 1st gen 3.5EB is over 110k miles. . . no issues.

"All the power is in the upper RPM where a truck engine should not be."

3.5EB HO delivers max torque of 510lbft @ 3500rpm.
GM's truck duty 6.2 delivers 460lbft @ 4100rpm.

3.5EB HO max HP of 450 is @ 5000rpm
Truck 6.2L max HP of 420 is @ 5600rpm


But, i digress.

The new Ranger should by all means utilize the 2.7EB, in a HO guise, as its top tier engine. It fits current playbook being put out by Ford Performancr, what with pushing thr EB name further and further.

Base could be a NA 2.3, a 3.0L Powerstroke should be an option, and the 2.7EB and a 2.7EB HO can sit at the top.

Thanks for that response.

I was going to say that its actually typical these days in factory turbo engines that they make their peak TQ at a lower RPM than most N/A engines and that TQ typically comes on early.

But your response spelled that out with numbers. I believe some people just hear the words "V6" or "4 cylinder" and think they all have to be strung out to get any power, even if they are FI and that is just not true.

[Royal Tiger]

Turbo technology has certainly come very far. I just hope they are more reliable then the ones ford puts in police cars. That's ford's fault though as what a turbo is not good at (idling for long periods of time, shutting off when it was just screaming at top rpm, etc...) are typical use in a police vehicle. We only get the NA versions in our fords now.

[snizzle]

Originally Posted by KMPrenger

Thanks for that response.

I was going to say that its actually typical these days in factory turbo engines that they make their peak TQ at a lower RPM than most N/A engines and that TQ typically comes on early.

But your response spelled that out with numbers. I believe some people just hear the words "V6" or "4 cylinder" and think they all have to be strung out to get any power, even if they are FI and that is just not true.

Can we agree that they sound like garbage though compared to a V8?

[KMPrenger]

Originally Posted by snizzle

Can we agree that they sound like garbage though compared to a V8?

Weeellll.....I can agree the V8 sounds better 100% But a V6 can be made to sound pretty decent, as long as you aren't expecting V8 like sound.

I'll go that far lol.